Nadal's level of play was quite low in '07 when he lost to Federer (getting bageled in the final set). It's the only match I know of in which Nadal's unforced errors were higher than Federer's (34-31).

Federer himself arguably played better in '08 than he did the previous year. That is apparent in the AM's, and supported by the fact that he made only 52% of his first serves in '07.

But Nadal won the rematch because he was back up at a level at which he's probably never lost on clay.

(Rafa was at 15% when he lost to Soderling, and at 5% in each of his losses to Novak at Madrid and Rome).

What's fun about this is when the finalists emerge, we can see if the one with the higher AM's wins.

I have not heard of the AM method being used that way (to predict the winner of a tournament). And if we do it by adding up the percentages and getting an average for each player, I'm not certain how exact that can be. But let's see what we get.

Yeah, for all we know AMs are a staple of bookies.

As the first two sets of Ferrer-Almagro concluded last night I thought to myself, "This, given Almagro's ~9% average edge over Ferrer in earlier matches, could have been predicted." The AM's were 15.5% for Almagro and 6.4% for Ferrer through two sets. Then the crisis hit Almagro, throwing all numbers out the window. Sad match to watch. Full match was 12.4% for Ferrer, so he finished close to the average of his last two matches, while Almagro dropped well below his average for the tournament, to 7.6%.

It will be interesting to see if Djokovic's AMs stay so high as he starts facing tougher opposition and has to play more defense.

Going by the AMs, Murray would look to be in worse form than the others in the lower half of the draw, and that Chardy might have a chance against him, if his form holds. But my guess is that Chardy's level will drop in the quarters or that Murray will drop it for him, whatever that means.

One of the interesting things for me with this was watching Tomic's AM's leading up to his clash with Federer. I checked out some of the banter in the current pro sub-forum on that match and a lot of the debate was about whether Tomic really was playing at a level that would threaten the top guys. The AM's showed that he clearly was, in fact his average AM through two rounds was top-5 level. I felt like I had something objective to go by in assessing his form and level, which was kind of cool especially as I haven't watched him enough to have a good sense of how good he really is. And even in defeat to Federer he posted a 16.2% AM, second only to DelPotro's 16.9% among match losers (that I've charted). If hed oesn't drop off a cliff as he did last year after Melbourne, this small sample of successful aggression suggests he is definitely top-10 material.

As the first two sets of Ferrer-Almagro concluded last night I thought to myself, "This, given Almagro's ~9% average edge over Ferrer in earlier matches, could have been predicted." The AM's were 15.5% for Almagro and 6.4% for Ferrer through two sets. Then the crisis hit Almagro, throwing all numbers out the window. Sad match to watch. Full match was 12.4% for Ferrer, so he finished close to the average of his last two matches, while Almagro dropped well below his average for the tournament, to 7.6%.

It will be interesting to see if Djokovic's AMs stay so high as he starts facing tougher opposition and has to play more defense.

Going by the AMs, Murray would look to be in worse form than the others in the lower half of the draw, and that Chardy might have a chance against him, if his form holds. But my guess is that Chardy's level will drop in the quarters or that Murray will drop it for him, whatever that means.

One of the interesting things for me with this was watching Tomic's AM's leading up to his clash with Federer. I checked out some of the banter in the current pro sub-forum on that match and a lot of the debate was about whether Tomic really was playing at a level that would threaten the top guys. The AM's showed that he clearly was, in fact his average AM through two rounds was top-5 level. I felt like I had something objective to go by in assessing his form and level, which was kind of cool especially as I haven't watched him enough to have a good sense of how good he really is. And even in defeat to Federer he posted a 16.2% AM, second only to DelPotro's 16.9% among match losers (that I've charted). If hed oesn't drop off a cliff as he did last year after Melbourne, this small sample of successful aggression suggests he is definitely top-10 material.

The numbers at the end will be interesting, though we know of many examples where one finalist has seemed to be in clearly better form than the other, but then an upset occurs (Ashe-Connors is a great example). The AM's, in that case, should reflect how well the upset finalist had been playing in the first six rounds; they should point to a very high level.

Who knows, but the exact numbers will be interesting, and may differ from our own impressions. We'll see.

Tomic had an AM of 33.6% in the first round. On your chart, outside of Djokovic, Murray and Del Potro, nobody in the first four rounds was able to get anything higher. So yeah, great potential there.

Federer's AM's against Tomic and Raonic were nearly identical. I thought the first match was more interesting and better played, just in the sense that Tomic was a better opponent than Raonic (who honestly bored me whenever he wasn't in his service motion); and that's reflected in the AM's.

A breakdown of average AMs for these four players over the past five rounds, alongside the average AMs of their opponents:

Djokovic: 25.6%
Opponents: 10.26%

Federer: 24.0%
Opponents: 11.7%

Murray: 23.64%
Opponents: 3.84%

Ferrer: 16.7%
Opponents: 4.0%

These numbers are interesting but I think they could be interpreted in a variety of ways. Clearly, the Big 3 are playing more aggressively and with more success than Ferrer. Djokovic's average is substantially above Ferrer's, which aligns with the general expectation that Djokovic will win their semifinal with relative ease.

On the bottom of the draw, Federer and Murray's AM averages are nearly identical. But Federer's opponents have posted much better AMs than Murray's opponents. Is this a consequence of Murray's weak draw and weak opposition? Or does it reflect differences in playing style - Murray more willing to engage in long baseline rallies where his opponent will tend to make an error, while Federer looking to shorten points?

It's interesting that the average AMs of both Murray and Ferrer's opponents are very similar, 3.84% to 4.0%. Again, is this a reflection of poorly-playing opposition or the counterpunching/grinding style of the 3rd and 4th seeds? Given that the 2005 whole-tournament average was around 10%, it seems unlikely that Murray and Ferrer faced opposition through five rounds that were playing at a level significantly below that average. However, a look on a match-by-match basis shows that Murray's opponents, from the 1st round to the Quarters, all posted low numbers. Conversely, Ferrer's 1st, 2nd and Quarterfinal opponents posted respectable AMs while his 3rd and 4th round opponents, both generally highly regarded on tour, posted negative AMs. What does this mean?

By contrast, the average of AMs of Federer and Djokovic's opponents were both right around the 2005 tournament average. Both men also posted AMs of their own in the mid-24s, similar to Murray. Again, are the high average AMs of their opponents a reflection of the playing style of the victor and/or the opponent? Or, more reflective of a higher level of play by those opponents?

4 out of 5 of Federer's opponents I would characterize as aggressive players in the context of playing styles today, so the high AM's posted by these players could be a reflection of that style. If this were the case, Federer's much higher AM average would suggest that he dominated these matches, which, excepting the Quarterfinal with Tsonga, was indeed the case. If this were true I think we could form similar conclusions about Djokovic's numbers, as at least three of his opponents I would characterize as aggressive.

This is by far the highest AM we have for Murray now (higher than anything we have for Djokovic).

It may reflect how Murray has tended to underperform on the biggest stages, because when he lost to Nadal in the '11 semis his AM was only 24.1%.

I don't know whether Murray's AM against Gasquet at 2011 Wimby was the highest achieved by anyone at that tournament, but at 42.4% it certainly could be. Djokovic, who won the tournament, was in the high 30s in his last two matches. Nadal reached the final, and in his last two matches he was in the low 30s. Federer was at 40.1% in his loss to Tsonga (who posted 36.5% in that same match).

so fed-tsonga was better match quality wise when compared to djoker-stan going by the AMs .....not by a small margin ... question is how much better was it and how much of the difference was caused by djoker's insane defense ?

A breakdown of average AMs for these four players over the past five rounds, alongside the average AMs of their opponents:

Djokovic: 25.6%
Opponents: 10.26%

Federer: 24.0%
Opponents: 11.7%

Murray: 23.64%
Opponents: 3.84%

Ferrer: 16.7%
Opponents: 4.0%

The AM's illustrated nicely how close the Big 3 are, and how far below Ferrer is. I did not expect the AM's to illustrate that situation so ideally.

Too bad Nadal's not around, I wonder if he would have posted a number right in there in the mid-20s.

Quote:

Originally Posted by corners

These numbers are interesting but I think they could be interpreted in a variety of ways. Clearly, the Big 3 are playing more aggressively and with more success than Ferrer. Djokovic's average is substantially above Ferrer's, which aligns with the general expectation that Djokovic will win their semifinal with relative ease.

On the bottom of the draw, Federer and Murray's AM averages are nearly identical. But Federer's opponents have posted much better AMs than Murray's opponents. Is this a consequence of Murray's weak draw and weak opposition? Or does it reflect differences in playing style - Murray more willing to engage in long baseline rallies where his opponent will tend to make an error, while Federer looking to shorten points?

It's interesting that the average AMs of both Murray and Ferrer's opponents are very similar, 3.84% to 4.0%. Again, is this a reflection of poorly-playing opposition or the counterpunching/grinding style of the 3rd and 4th seeds? Given that the 2005 whole-tournament average was around 10%, it seems unlikely that Murray and Ferrer faced opposition through five rounds that were playing at a level significantly below that average. However, a look on a match-by-match basis shows that Murray's opponents, from the 1st round to the Quarters, all posted low numbers. Conversely, Ferrer's 1st, 2nd and Quarterfinal opponents posted respectable AMs while his 3rd and 4th round opponents, both generally highly regarded on tour, posted negative AMs. What does this mean?

By contrast, the average of AMs of Federer and Djokovic's opponents were both right around the 2005 tournament average. Both men also posted AMs of their own in the mid-24s, similar to Murray. Again, are the high average AMs of their opponents a reflection of the playing style of the victor and/or the opponent? Or, more reflective of a higher level of play by those opponents?

4 out of 5 of Federer's opponents I would characterize as aggressive players in the context of playing styles today, so the high AM's posted by these players could be a reflection of that style. If this were the case, Federer's much higher AM average would suggest that he dominated these matches, which, excepting the Quarterfinal with Tsonga, was indeed the case. If this were true I think we could form similar conclusions about Djokovic's numbers, as at least three of his opponents I would characterize as aggressive.

So what does it all mean for the semifinal matchups?

All good questions, no easy answers. But a few points.

- The AO courts may be playing slower than they were in 2005. Plexicushion is said to be slower than Rebound Ace; and there's some evidence (brought up by ABMK) that even the Plexicushion itself has been slowed down in the last few years.

- Federer's opponents have high AM's but that may simply be due to the fact that they're good players, rather than due to their styles. Federer's draw was generally regarded as full of dangerous players.

The styles issue is not an easy one but I'm skeptical that high AM's are due to aggressive styles. In this thread we've seen countless AM's that are high, but produced by "grinders" or consistent baseliners who kept their UE's down.

If merely having an aggressive style should lead more readily to having a high AM, we would expect Federer's AM in this tournament to be significantly ahead of Djokovic's and Murray's, since Fed has the most aggressive style of the three men. Djokovic, too, is more aggressive than Murray. But all three players are bound up closely together in their AM's.

The AM's illustrated nicely how close the Big 3 are, and how far below Ferrer is. I did not expect the AM's to illustrate that situation so ideally.

Too bad Nadal's not around, I wonder if he would have posted a number right in there in the mid-20s.

All good questions, no easy answers. But a few points.

- The AO courts may be playing slower than they were in 2005. Plexicushion is said to be slower than Rebound Ace; and there's some evidence (brought up by ABMK) that even the Plexicushion itself has been slowed down in the last few years.

- Federer's opponents have high AM's but that may simply be due to the fact that they're good players, rather than due to their styles. Federer's draw was generally regarded as full of dangerous players.

The styles issue is not an easy one but I'm skeptical that high AM's are due to aggressive styles. In this thread we've seen countless AM's that are high, but produced by "grinders" or consistent baseliners who kept their UE's down.

If merely having an aggressive style should lead more readily to having a high AM, we would expect Federer's AM in this tournament to be significantly ahead of Djokovic's and Murray's, since Fed has the most aggressive style of the three men. Djokovic, too, is more aggressive than Murray. But all three players are bound up closely together in their AM's.

Perhaps i dont understand AMs well enough, but isnt the AM of a player dependent on the opponent i.e. it is relative only to the opponent to the other side.

I suppose what one can deduce is whether players are performing "well" as compared to how they usually play. The AM can be used as a benchmark in matchups and whether they had a good day relatively speaking to past matches.

But to compare djokovic to federer for example..there is a small difference in AM. Is this because federer's opponents were better? They certainly performed "better" based on AMs, but this is relative to federer of course. As they can only play federer's shots not djokovic's.

Perhaps what we need is a Delta AM - that is the differene between the player and the opponent. That way we can potentially cancel out stylistic differences that would lead aggressive players to have a higher absolute AM than defense oriented players...

This way we have a better feel for the form of the player as compared to the competition.

Ferrer's form was clearly not that great, and he got smashed as predicted by the AMs. His opponents also subjectively were not necessarily tougher than novak's opponents, and they also performed worse that he did as per opponent's AM.